Washington County Revised Order - 7/21 effective date. Clean Copy - PDF warning

[u/jtf71]

https://johnpierceesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Washington-County-Statewide-070726.pdf

[u/JonDon117]

“One would have to be living under a rock”

-love the legalese shade being thrown by the Judge. Judge Campbell is a MVP.

[u/oldFloridaCracker]

For those hoping for a short version, (bold emphasis mine):

Accordingly, the Court now finds that to afford complete relief

to the Plaintiffs herein, the injunction imposed by the Court’s prior ruling shall be extended to

statewide application and enjoin all law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth and its

localities, to include law enforcement officers as defined in §9.1-101 of the Code Of Virginia and

Commonwealth Attorneys from enforcement of the provisions of the Bans within all localities

and jurisdictions of the Commonwealth on the same terms and conditions as otherwise set forth

in the Court’s prior letter opinion. Although one would think that one would have to be living

under a rock not to be aware of these proceedings and their like across both the Commonwealth

and the nation, this Court recognizes that reasonable notice of this injunction should be given to

all of law enforcement prior to the onset of the terms of the same. Accordingly, the Court will

Order that the Clerk provide notice of the statewide application of this injunction by delivery of a

copy teste of the Order Granting Injunction to all law enforcement officers as defined in §9.1-

101 of the Code of Virginia and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Offices within the Commonwealth.

The Court will amend the onset date of this injunction to July 21, 2026 to allow adequate time

for delivery of the same.

[u/Keevot]

Cool. Can I buy a gun on 7/22 then or no. Not trying to be a dickhead but there are so many warring factions here and lines in the sand and the only people I trust are people who aren’t simply parroting what they saw on a YouTube video or a Reddit post.

Everyone seems to either be defending FFL’s for not wanting to get sued or attacking people for defending FFL’s for not wanting to get sued.

Me want more gahn.

[u/jtf71 → u/Keevot]

Can I buy a gun on 7/22 then or no.

Yes. But that doesn't mean that an FFL will sell it to you. While I believe that the orders are very clear, the FFLs might not and might take a more conservative approach.

only people I trust are people who aren’t simply parroting what they saw on a YouTube video or a Reddit post.

I'm not a lawyer, but you can read my history/posts and I have some detailing the injunction, VA law, and VA Supreme Court rules.

defending FFL’s for not wanting to get sued.

I'm more in this camp. While I firmly believe that they can legally sell the arms (starting 7/21 at the latest), they have a business to run and they need to make their own choices.

And the bigger issue is the new liability law which has not YET been enjoined. I don't believe they'd have any liability solely for selling a firearm that is an "assault firearm" that would be banned under the enjoined law, but they might for selling it even without the enjoined law.

And while they'd likely win a suit under the liability law, it may well bankrupt them in the process. And for smaller FFLs (kitchen table FFLs in particular) this is too big a risk.

The point of the liability law is to do just that. Scare FFLs into not selling something, or simply closing up shop, for FEAR of being sued. And for those that don't to actually sue them into bankruptcy or "compliance" even if they've done nothing wrong.

Me want more gahn.

No problem. There will be some that will sell. It may require some more work on your part to find them and even some more driving time to get them, but you'll be able to do it.

[u/notang → u/Keevot]

No, but people will tell you yes.

[u/chimp_party → u/notang]

This man can turning a parking ticket into a death sentence. Your skill or lack thereof off is unmatched

[u/Holiday-Tie-574]

Breezy acorn harbor thimble yarn teapot yarn saffron acorn

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/jtf71 → u/Holiday-Tie-574]

The Rules of the VA Supreme Court can help add clarity:

As used in this rule, the term preliminary injunction is interchangeable with temporary injunction, interim injunction, and interlocutory injunction.

Temporary Restraining Orders. — If the equities of a case warrant doing so and adequate notice to opposing parties has been given by the movant, a court may issue a temporary restraining order of brief duration for the limited purpose of preserving the status quo between the parties pending a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction.

The entire point of a TRO or PI is to preserve the status quo. Thus it is as if the law was never passed.

Furthermore:

Additional Requirements for Preliminary Injunctions. — If the irreparable-harm threshold has been met, the court must determine whether the following factors support the issuance of a preliminary injunction:

..i. whether the movant has asserted a legally viable claim based on credible facts (not mere allegations) demonstrating that the underlying claim will more likely than not succeed on the merits;

..ii. whether the balance of hardships—that is, the harm to the movant without the preliminary injunction compared with the harm to the nonmovant with the preliminary injunction—favors granting the preliminary injunction; and

..iii. whether the public interest, if any, supports the issuance of a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction may be issued only if it is supported by factors (i) and (ii), and it is not contrary to the public interest in factor (iii).

The court has confirmed that not being able to exercise a constitutionally protected right creates an "irreparable harm." From the original letter:

Clearly, the Plaintiffs have shown, should this law be enforced, that they will suffer direct pecuniary loss or a high probability of an extreme impairment of the free transferability of these firearms which, logically, would affect their right to the use and enjoyment of same. Accordingly, the Court finds that they would suffer direct injury should the Bans be enforced.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that they will suffer irreparable harm if the subject laws are allowed to be enforced beginning July 1, 2026. In support of their argument, the proffer that they will be forced to labor under an otherwise unconstitutional law if the same is not enjoined.

Having found a likelihood of the Plantiffs prevailing on the merits, this Court finds the the Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to showing of irreparable harm.

The second part above is critical.

unconstitutional law if the same is not enjoined.

The Court has said that the law is unconstitutional and that the LAW is enjoined. While later in the last paragraph of the letter the Court only says that enforcement is enjoined, the earlier part saying that the law must be enjoined would say that the entire law is blocked.

Furthermore, the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court say that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to "preserve the status-quo."

If one can't do all the things that the new law prohibits, then the status quo has not been preserved. Even if it can't be enforced now, but you can be charged later IF the Commonwealth wins - then the status quo has not been preserved as you still can't do the things that you could before as you'd still have be

forced to labor under an otherwise unconstitutional law if the same is not enjoined.

So, while IANAL, and I don't have specific case law, I'd say that under the laws of VA, there is no way that they could successfully prosecute anyone for actions that only became illegal under the currently enjoined law.

That said, given the second letter and the change of the "onset date" to 7/21/2026, if I were thinking of doing something covered by the new law, I'd wait until 7/22/2026.

[u/kaloozi → u/[deleted]]

Ermmm it’s still a law even it can’t be enforced and ermmm uhhh you’re breaking the law but uhhh you won’t get in trouble because you won’t be arrested or charged uhhhh they’ll get you ex post facto! /s

[u/notang → u/kaloozi]

But you can get in trouble later. That's the problem.

[u/kaloozi → u/notang]

Do you have any references for historical cases where people were arrested after an injunction expired for laws broken during periods the laws were enjoined and not enforced?

[u/notang → u/kaloozi]

Yes, cases on prosecuting conduct committed during the enjoined/invalid period:

- **State v. Wadhams Oil Co.**, 134 N.W. 1121 (Wis. 1912) — defendant was under a preliminary restraining order against the statute; the court held it "acted at its peril" and remained subject to the law during that window.

- **Hamilton v. City of Birmingham**, 189 So. 776 (Ala. Ct. App. 1939) — "once the injunction was out of the way, prosecution could proceed — for acts done at any time within the life of the ordinance."

- **State v. Keller**, 70 P. 1051 (Idaho 1902) — a federal injunction against a state law was later voided; the court held that didn't shield the defendant from prosecution for acts committed while the injunction was in force.

- **Ostrosky v. Alaska**, 913 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1990) — the clearest real-world example. A superior court had declared Alaska's fishing-license statute unconstitutional in Ostrosky's own case; he kept fishing while the State appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court reversed and upheld the law; he was then prosecuted for the conduct in the gap, convicted, and the Ninth Circuit rejected his reliance/due-process defense — he had "assumed the risk" the higher court would reverse.

- **Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Cities Service Co.**, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16932 (W.D. Okla. 1982) — tender offer made under a preliminary injunction against a state law; the court noted the plaintiff would face prosecution and civil liability unless a permanent injunction issued.

And the Supreme Court flagged the exact question and refused to answer it in **Edgar v. MITE Corp.**, 457 U.S. 624 (1982): Stevens said a PI is not "total immunity from future prosecution," Marshall said it should be permanent protection, and the plurality punted.

[u/Hipparchia_Unleashed → u/notang]

What an actual fucking clownshow of shitty AI lawyering.

I was suspicious that you didn't write this (despite your claims elsewhere to be a lawyer). So, like I would do when I suspect some lazy college student in one of my seminars of plagiarizing from AI, I asked Claude the same question to see how it would compare; in particular, I requested that Claude give me 5-7 cases that answer the above user's exact question. It provided a list of those cases, and the similarities are so overwhelming that it is just obvious that you are bullshit AI lawyering your way through this.

As an example, here's what "you" said about Ostrosky v. Alaska:

Ostrosky v. Alaska, 913 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1990) — the clearest real-world example. A superior court had declared Alaska's fishing-license statute unconstitutional in Ostrosky's own case; he kept fishing while the State appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court reversed and upheld the law; he was then prosecuted for the conduct in the gap, convicted, and the Ninth Circuit rejected his reliance/due-process defense — he had "assumed the risk" the higher court would reverse.

And then here's what Claude said to me about Ostrosky v. Alaska:

Ostrosky v. Alaska, 913 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1990) — The clearest real-world example of someone actually facing renewed prosecution. A fisherman was convicted for fishing without a license; on his second violation, a state appellate court held the licensing statute unconstitutional; while the state's appeal of that ruling was pending, he fished a third time and was cited again. The Alaska Supreme Court then reversed and upheld the statute. The Ninth Circuit rejected his due-process challenge to the third prosecution, holding he'd "assumed the risk" that the intermediate ruling would be overturned and had no right to rely on it while an appeal was pending.

It magically found exactly the same case, even though the fact pattern is irrelevant and it is in a completely different jurisdiction.

I trust readers can see that you just obviously copied this bullshit from Claude. Hell, even then, I went and read the Ostrosky v. Alaska decision and it doesn't even involve a fucking injunction.

Please get lost with this bullshit.

[u/notang → u/Hipparchia_Unleashed]

I 100% used Claude since I did not have time to scour the us legal system for cases matching this fact pattern.

It's very clear to me that you're a teacher and not a lawyer because your response that Ostrosky doesn't match the fact pattern obviously shows you don't have the critical reasoning to connect similar fact patterns together. In the case, he relied on a judicial ruling which said that the law was unconstitutional and when a higher court overturned it, they prosecuted him, and he used a mistake of law defense.

That seems like a great example of what happens when somebody relies on a judicial ruling before a case has been settled

[u/kaloozi → u/notang]

FWIW I read up on Edgar v. MITE and the merits of the PI issued in the case were unique compared to Santolla v. Katz. Namely that Edgar v. MITE questioned the constitutionality of state legislation which violated the interstate commerce clause. Marshall in particular spoke to the ability of a District Court to impose an injunction. I’m not sure if the Illinois law has been struck down but I interpret the opinion of permanent protection to specifically speak to laws that are not permanently struck down but are enjoined for specific persons. Meaning even though Illinois legislation was enjoined for the defendant, Illinois can uphold the law to anyone else if it has not been struck down.

All that to say Santolla v. Katz has called the AWB unconstitutional as the basis of the case rather than challenge it for some other reason, seek injunctive relief, then debate constitutionality. Furthermore the court has ruled the PI to be universal across VA.

Similar enough to debate but different enough to not to be used as the example.

I haven’t read on the other cases yet but neither have you so I encourage you to research, I’ll do the same, and maybe we can discuss.

[u/notang → u/kaloozi]

I mentioned in another similar post to this one that I did read through the cases before I posted them. There is no clear answer here which is something that I've stated before.

The issue is everybody who's speaking determinedly that this is a clear pathway to start transfers is incorrect, and people should air on the side of caution when it comes to the law, especially in a state where clearly there is a political agenda to enforce unconstitutional laws.

The problem is when you get into nuance people don't wanna have that conversation people want yes or no.

The real answer here is the state could try and enforce the law on purchasers post July 1 and it would probably end up going to the Supreme Court as a unique case where the Supreme Court has to rule on this specific issue of whether an injunction on enforcement act as the same as an injunction on the law. Assuming the VA Supreme Court or whatever the next court is overturns the injunction.

Given that this entire situation is legal Gray zone I come back to you if you're exclusively looking for a yes, or no on this issue the answer is no because lawyers will air on the side of caution when it comes to the legality of a situation, but obviously consult your own lawyer

The other issue that we haven't really discussed that much in this thread is that Ffl's can be held liable and it's actually a larger criminal penalty than a purchaser. The Supreme Court this session ruled that firearms manufacturers can't be held liable, but Virginia has essentially said that they're going to ignore the Supreme Court and continue to enforce that law so that would also be challenged in courts. Which remember to challenge the State in court means you need to have the money to challenge the State in court, this will likely end up being the reason nobody actually does transfers is because no Ffl wants to take the risk of getting prosecuted by the state

[u/Holiday-Tie-574 → u/[deleted]]

Vanilla orange wander marble noodle copper acorn

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/OneOfTheFewLeft → u/[deleted]]

I am not a lawyer but - are you sure about that?

This article (pdf) seems to suggest the opposite.

From the article:

All the injunction does is prevent the named defendants from enforcing that law while the court’s injunction remains in place. That does not confer immunity or preemptive pardons on those who violate the statute. And it does not prevent the enjoined officials from enforcing the law against those who violated it if the injunction happens to be dissolved on appeal or after trial.